Reports from the Trial against "National Socialist Underground" Accused from the Perspective of the Private Accessory Prosecution

8 July 2014

Right wing lawyer Jauch: (former) lawyer to all those involved in the trial?

Today, the court first heard three witness who had rented the mobile home used by the NSU for the attack on two police officers after the NSU had rented it. Their rental period had started on the day after the attack and they had received the vehicle later than planned since it had only been returned after 10 pm the day of the attack.

Another witness reported that, on the Saturday or Sunday after the bank robbery in Eisenach and the death of Mundlos and Böhnhardt, she had seen Zschäpe running around in Eisenach seeming like she was in shock.

The federal prosecution continued in its strategy of trying to torpedo any and all motions which could lead to further elucidation of the facts. This time, they had to comment on a motion for evidence by counsel for the victims of the bombing attack in the Probsteigasse in Cologne. That motion concerned a Neonazis from Cologne who shows a striking resemblance to the photofit picture which was drawn up based on the statements of the shop owner who had been attacked. As it has done many times before, the prosecution moved that the motion be denied.
The prosecution reacted in the same way to a motion by victims’ counsel that the court ask agencies in Thuringia to downgrade files from the parliamentary enquiry in Thuringia currently classed as “secret”. Counsel had so moved in order to be able to quote from the files in questioning witnesses. The attempts by the prosecution to ensure that even material which is already in the files not be made subject of the trial hearing show a strong uncertainty on their part. The prosecution even refuses to hand out the written text of their statements in court, forcing other trial participants to rely on their handwritten notes and thus making it harder to deal with the prosecution’s arguments. It seems that the prosecution does not even want to be held to its own arguments.

Over the course of the afternoon, Thuringian Nazi lawyer Thomas Jauch testified in court. He had represented all accused at some point in the past and therefore refused to testify based on attorney-client privilege. When accused Gerlach and Schultze waived that privilege as far as they were concerned, Jauch claimed – unsurprisingly – that he could not remember anything. Similary, he claimed not to be able to recall who had rented his property in the years from 1998 to 2002 – in those years, there had been several Nazi concerts on that property, some claim that at least some of them money had been collected for “the Three” after they had gone underground.

Asked about an interview in the weekly “Focus” in which he had stated that Zschäpe had asked him to represent her and paid an advance, Jauch refused to answer. At least one answer given by him was obviously untrue – he claimed that he had first heard of the “Thuringia Home Guard” in 2006 or 2007. In fact, according to documents from the Thuringia secret service, “Home Guard” leaders Kapke and Brehme had already in 2000 wanted to discuss with Jauch the possibility of the “Home Guard” being banned and dissolved by the authorities.